As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
Just had a visit from a friend with his 9 year old son, while i was making coffee the 9 year old read a post (yes I left the laptop open) - he wanted to know who Poor Me was, (yes that posters post), so I told him that it was meant to be our previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard - he was silent for a few seconds (very rare) and then tells me - "I think that poor person is just jealous, I don't think Mrs Gillard is poor, is she Dad?
@boris1gary wrote:Just had a visit from a friend with his 9 year old son, while i was making coffee the 9 year old read a post (yes I left the laptop open) - he wanted to know who Poor Me was, (yes that posters post), so I told him that it was meant to be our previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard - he was silent for a few seconds (very rare) and then tells me - "I think that poor person is just jealous, I don't think Mrs Gillard is poor, is she Dad?
It must be some type of syndrome suffered by old white males when some upstart younger woman overtakes their achievements.
Poor Irrelevant Old White Male syndrome perhaps?
PIOWM syndrome.. reading morrison today and maybe someone (no tories thanks) could explain if this means the military are now running some government affairs? it very much seems like it, or is morrison preparing a scape goat.
'What I'm saying is that any other ventures that are the subject of matters before the Australian courts are matters that we will address in those courts and we have always maintained a very strong process for how we manage communications regarding our operations,'' Mr Morrison said.
''That communication protocol has been put in place by Lieutenant-General Campbell, who heads the joint agency taskforce in Australia that has command over these matters. As the minister of the government, I'm going to adhere to those protocols because they have been very important to the success of those operations.''
" Have to see if an International Court will take action against Conventions breached by our trusty Aussie decision makers breakers"
What "conventions" have been breached P007?
However under the circumstances (and what little we know of them)
All this would not be a problem if The Circus, under Rudd and Poor Me, had not ended the Pacific Solution, and indirectly caused the many drowning deaths that resulted from the resulting influx of boats.
P007: "
Just for start-erers, suggest you research and read following:
* UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
*SAR - International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue
*SOLAS - The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
You will find the answers to many of your questions
SAR operations and safety at sea????
P007 if you actually wish to quote something relevant to this debate, I suggest:
There are four areas of international law that are likely to be of most relevance to australia’s policies with respect to asylum seekers:
1. the refugees convention;
2. international human rights law;
3. the law of the sea; and
4. principles of state responsibility.
The applicable international law will depend on the details of a specific policy and the
implementation of that policy.
As a general statement, legislation alone is unlikely to be able to guarantee compliance with
australia’s international law obligations. compliance depends on what australia does by way
of legislation, administration and practice.
The refugees convention does not indicate what procedures are to be adopted for the
determination of refugee status. It is left to each contracting state to establish the procedure
for refugee status assessments that it considers most appropriate.
The only question I have P007 (still) is: what conventions (not laws) have been breached in the current situation?, as I have a little knowledge of some of the above (SAR, SOLAS) as it is similar to trans oceanic aeronautical operations, and I do not mean "evil chemtrailing" either.
If you are going to quote refreferences I suggest you read them first, because what you have written is nonsense in the current case regarding what I have mentioned apropos the first boat and the 41 passengers e.g.
"Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law exist regardless of whether a person is entitled to non-refoulement protection under the refugees convention"
Research the term "refugee", because the passengers on the first boat certainly could not be classed as such under the "Convention" being economic refugees (migrants), and as such should, and were, subject to refoulement, and so far a wife of a so called refugee on the 2nd boat from India has said that her husband was hoping for work in NZ to support her family.
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion" (Article 33(1))"
Read your references!
